Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 289–310 | Cite as

Shared decision-making and patient autonomy

Article

Abstract

In patient-centred care, shared decision-making is advocated as the preferred form of medical decision-making. Shared decision-making is supported with reference to patient autonomy without abandoning the patient or giving up the possibility of influencing how the patient is benefited. It is, however, not transparent how shared decision-making is related to autonomy and, in effect, what support autonomy can give shared decision-making. In the article, different forms of shared decision-making are analysed in relation to five different aspects of autonomy: (1) self-realisation; (2) preference satisfaction; (3) self-direction; (4) binary autonomy of the person; (5) gradual autonomy of the person. It is argued that both individually and jointly these aspects will support the models called shared rational deliberative patient choice and joint decision as the preferred versions from an autonomy perspective. Acknowledging that both of these models may fail, the professionally driven best interest compromise model is held out as a satisfactory second-best choice.

Keywords

Shared decision-making Patient autonomy Patient choice Paternalism 

References

  1. 1.
    Mead, Nicola, and Peter Bower. 2000. Patient-centredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science and Medicine 51 (7): 1087–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charles, Cathy, Gafni Amiram, and Tim Whelan. 1997. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine 44 (5): 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charles, Cathy, Gafni Amiram, and Tim Whelan. 1999. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Science and Medicine 49 (5): 651–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sandman, Lars, and Christian Munthe. 2009. Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice. Health Care Analysis. doi: 10.1007/s10728-008-0108-6. http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2r4lw5726hqq05k/?p=2b27c48f32af49919d5a349395a63cba&pi=8. Accessed 26 April 2009.
  5. 5.
    Juth, Niklas. 2005. Genetic information, values and rights: The morality of presymptomatic genetic testing. Doctoral diss., Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Habermas, Jürgen. 1979. Communication and evolution of society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deetz, Stanley A. 1992. Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwab, Abraham P. 2006. Formal and effective autonomy in healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (10): 575–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brülde, Bengt. 1998. The human good. Doctoral diss., Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rachels, James, and William Ruddick. 1989. Lives and liberty. In The inner citadel, ed. John Christman, 221–233. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996. Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schermer, Maartje. 2003. The different faces of autonomy. Patient autonomy in ethical theory and hospital practice. Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, vol. 13. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dworkin, Gerald. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 1990. Vårdetik, 3rd ed. Stockholm: Thales.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mill, John Stuart. 2003 [1859]. On liberty. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 1999. Coercive care: The ethics of choice in health and medicine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Varelius, Jukka. 2006. The value of autonomy in medical ethics. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 9: 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rhodes, Rosamond. 2000. Autonomy, respect, and genetic information policy: A reply to Tuija Takala and Matti Häyry. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (1): 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rhodes, Rosamond. 1998. Futility and the goals of medicine. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 9 (2): 194–205.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gauthier, Candace Cummins. 2002. The virtue of moral responsibility in healthcare decisionmaking. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 11 (3): 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gauthier, Candace Cummins. 2000. Moral responsibility and respect for autonomy: Meeting the communitarian challenge. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10 (4): 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tengland, Per A. 2008. Empowerment: A conceptual discussion. Health Care Analysis 16 (2): 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the faces of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waller, Bruce N. 2002. The psychological structure of patient autonomy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 11 (3): 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Makoul, Gregory, and Maria L. Clayman. 2006. An integrative model of shared decision-making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counselling 30 (3): 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smart, John Jamieson Carswell, and Bernard Williams. 1973. Utilitarianism—for and against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of ScienceGothenburg UniversityGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.School of Health SciencesUniversity College of BoråsBoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations